The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About041 07 cc: P fl "{ S/3O)o1 1(eas :J JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING } THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S } OFFICE TO SATISFY TWO } JUDGMENT LIENS IN EXCHANGE } FOR PAYMENT OF $4,067.20 } RESOLUTION NO. 41-07 WHEREAS, Jefferson County, in part through its Prosecuting Attorney's Office, has increased its enforcement efforts, including, but not limited to, filing civil lawsuits against persistent and/or long-time violators oflocal Code provisions; and WHEREAS, as part of those civil lawsuits the County, as Plaintiff, has obtained from the Superior Court Judge monetary Judgments reflecting and memorializing fines computed on a daily basis for longstanding and continuous violations of relevant Jefferson County Code provisions; and WHEREAS, such Judgments can run into the thousands of dollars; and WHEREAS, such Judgments become liens on any real property owned by the Judgment Debtors, who are usually also the defendants in these civil lawsuits to enforce County Code'provisions; and WHEREAS, the County, as Plaintiff, has obtained two Judgments against certain Defendants based on longstanding and continuous septic and building code violations at the Defendants' residence in Cape George; and WHEREAS, the face value total of the two Judgments described above exceeds $8,000; and WHEREAS, the Defendants are refinancing their real property in order to obtain the quantity of funds they will need to complete the repairs and installations necessary to come into compliance with the applicable building code; and WHEREAS, the Judgments described above must be satisfied (removed) at the time of the refinance closing or the closing will not and cannot occur; and WHEREAS, the County Commission wants to see the Defendants obtain enough money to make the necessary repairs and installations without money needed for such work being drained offby the Judgment Creditor, i.e., the County; and RESOLUTION NO. 41-07 WHEREAS, the County Commission chooses to not be overly punitive with respect to citizens who have not complied with local Codes since the County's preference is always code compliance rather than litigation; and WHEREAS, the sum that the County will receive in satisfaction of those Judgments is significant and will have some punitive aspect to it; and WHEREAS, the desire to insure that refinance sums are used for repairs and installations, the County's intent to not appear overly punitive with respect to its citizens and the significant size of the dollar amount that the County will receive in satisfaction of its Judgments collectively represent sufficient items of value bargained for and exchanged, i.e., legal "consideration," NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: The Prosecuting Attorney's Office be and hereby is authorized to file a Satisfaction of Judgment with the Clerk of the Superior Court relating to Judgment #06- 9-00357-2 (filed August 25,2006) in exchange for payment of One Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Seven and 20/100ths Dollars or $1,567.20 The Prosecuting Attorney's Office be and hereby is authorized to file a Satisfaction of Judgment with the Clerk of the Superior Court relating to Judgment #06- 9-00427-7 (filed October 13,2006) in exchange for payment of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars Even or $2,500.00. Approved this 29thdayof May ,2007. S Phil John , Chair ,~,~ ~, John A tin, Member JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Prosecuting Attorney's Office DATE: May 29, 2007 SUBJECT: Satisfaction of a Judgment on behalf of Jefferson County Enforcement matter: Jefferson County vs. Wright/Blanchard Superior Court #05-2-00426-5 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: As Chief Civil DP A, David Alvarez has filed about seven lawsuits in Superior Court to enforce the septic and zoning codes of this County. Typically, during the pendency of the lawsuit the County asks the Judge to award the County fines of either $50 or $1 00 (depending on the code section violated) for each day a particular parcel or residence is in violation of a local Code. This form of relief is granted in many cases, usually because the facts are overwhelming that such violations have been occurring for years or decades. The fines become a Judgment and as such are a lien on any real property the defendants/landowners have title to. Mr. Wright and Ms. Blanchard, owners of a parcel in Cape George, have been in violation of the septic and building codes since at least 1992. Only after the lawsuit was filed in 2005 did they understand the County's seriousness and they obtained a final approval for their septic system in 2007. During the lawsuit the County obtained Judgments against Wright and Blanchard in the amount of $8,134.40 for continuous daily violations of both codes. The building code violations continue to exist at this time. However, in order to come into compliance with the building code Wright and Blanchard will have to spend large sums of money (>$10,000), money they can only obtain by refinancing their real property and using some of their equity to pay to have the necessary repairs and installations completed. Wright and Blanchard have arranged a refinancing deal with a local credit union. The problem arises because the two Judgment 'running' to the County pre-date any lien a lender would obtain against their real property and thus are 'first in line' for payoff if Wright and Blanchard were to default on their loan. Like any residential lender the credit union not only wants to be first in line but doesn't want any liens behind it. In sum, unless the two Judgments in favor of the County are satisfied at the time of closing the refinance that Wright and Blanchard desire will not occur. The question then arises how much money should the County request for satisfaction of its two Judgments? DPA Alvarez proposes that the County reduce the amount it requires to satisfy the Judgment by 50% to the sum of $4,067.20. There are several reasons that support this proposal. The primary reason for accepting less than the face value of the Judgments is that the Wrights will need to have as much money as possible to repair and install all the items (some 12 in all) they must make compliant with the building code. To have the County require full payment of the face value of the Judgments (plus statutory interest) only to see Wright and Blanchard fail to finish the projects necessary to get to building code compliance would be a poor end result. Another reason to accept the smaller amount is the County's general desire to not act in a punitive manner towards its citizens. The money would be better spent allowing Wright and Blanchard to achieve building code compliance so their residence can be safe rather than hazardous to their health and safety. Another reason to accept this proposal is that the sum in excess of $4,000 that would be obtained by, the County to &atisfy its Judgments is not insubstantial and is presumably more money than numerous County citizens earn in one month. There is also some value in having the money sooner rather than later since such Judgments often do not become a payment to the creditor until years after they are entered. ANALYSIS: The proposed Resolution would further three purposes: improve the health and safety of County citizens, inform County citizens that persistent violators,will face monetary consequences and put some money into the County's coffers. FISCAL IMPACT: The sum of $4,067.20 would come into the County's coffers. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of County Commissioners should adopt the attached Resolution allowing the Prosecuting Attorney's Office to file with Superior Court two Satisfactions of Judgment for the Judgments obtained Wright and Blanchard in exchange for payment of $4,067.20 REVIEWED BY: County Administrator 5' -~1,- 07 Date ~